England play well when they are the underdogs. They get confused when they are the better team.

Ashes?

Yes, that is one example. England went into the Ashes as underdogs. England hadn't won in Australia since 1986-87, the last series was a 5-0 thrashing, our bowling attack was allegedly going to struggle on Australian pitches with a Kookaburra ball, and our batting was allegedly suspect.

What happened? England thrashed Australia 3-1, only losing in Perth when suddenly they became favourites to retain the Ashes.

After that, there was talk of "momentum" into the ODI series where England would surely "dominate" Australia... whoops, England favourites= poor performances.

I reckon England perform best when either a) they have been written off or b) they are coming off a poor performance

England play well when they are the underdogs. They get confused when they are the better team.

Ashes?

Ashes 2009, too? Headingly? England "finished", etc... they then turn in a great performance at the Oval.

Seriously mate, there are so many examples.

Everyone I spoke to in Brisbane both Aussie and English prior to the Ashes 2010/11 believed England were favourites going into that series. We had the better bowlers and batsman all of whom were in great form after the warm up games. If your theroy is about past and present England teams, fair enough. But based on this current team I cannot agree with your theroy.

And the Oval 2009, as brilliant as that display was, was mainly thanks to winning a crucial toss.

EDIT - Your point is spot on about this current set up bouncing back from a poor display though.